Absolutely agree ... :)
Then, it comes the question about "Fashion" - is your (mine) image 'in
the style' ('à la mode')?
I'm now realizing that many photographers are *coming forward* to
using film, but the do so stressing / underlining imperfections.
Those which do bother me most is shifting colors towards cyan, apply
vignetting, and lower resolution increasing contrast ( = resulting in
more vignetting).
Of course, those are the 'educated photographers' - those who are
aware they're 'making an interpretation'. Mainstream interpretations
become 'cliché', and boring (me).
Fernando.
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Ken Norton <ken@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> But, to answer the question, scanning slides usually results in loss
> of some saturation and contrast, which needs to be corrected. At issue
> is how much correction to do? Do you correct it to return to what you
> see with the naked eye on the light-table? Or do you do a "while I'm
> at it, I might as well make it better" set of actions? If you are like
> me, Moose and a few other people, we jack the sliders around to get an
> interpretation that we like.
>
> A film scan is a "raw file" like any raw file from a digital camera.
> You get to apply a standardized correction to the image to bring it up
> to whatever "normal" look. But you can also get creative and do fancy
> stuff to it too. It's like cropping. Is it fair to assume that a
> cropped image isn't valid because it wasn't shot that way "in-camera"?
>
> --
> Ken Norton
> ken@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.zone-10.com
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|